Cidic mgc full_paper

Paper presented at the 1r Congrés Internacional de Disseny i Innovació de
Catalunya, March 2010

Multidisciplinary team collaboration
and communication are not easy

1, 2
Mercè Graell-Colas
1
Department of Design, The Ohio State University, USA
2
Visualteamwork, USA and Spain (merce@visualteamwork.com)

Abstract
Since the beginning of the 21st century, different fields such as business and
engineering have regarded design as an important strategic advantage to
innovation because of the nature of design thinking and methods—team-based
collaboration, visualizing knowledge, and the user-centered approach, among other
characteristics. A good example is the collection of opportunity–defining and
problem–solving methods that currently are marketed as ‘design thinking’ and
have become the rage in the business press—Harvard Business Review, Business
Week and Rotman Magazine, to name a few. At the same time, the design
profession is shifting from a design-centric practice to a multidisciplinary design
practice that includes more disciplines for research, problem setting, and problem
solving. The complexity of today’s design problems—the global economy, rate of
change in new technologies, the challenges of sustainability development—requires
diverse design teams, comprised of multiple disciplines as well as multiple cultures,
to look at broader and different perspectives and larger scopes of investigation.
Furthermore, the participation of multiple disciplines is especially relevant at the
earliest stages of the design process or at the “fuzzy beginnings”, as different
authors relate to them.
Due to the multilayered and multifaceted interactions between team members,
effective communication and collaboration among people in multidisciplinary
design teams becomes critical to ensure a project’s success, in particular, and for
innovation, in general. Yet, team communication and collaboration are difficult.
Each discipline brings its own knowledge and perspective to the process, which
must be integrated to create a successful design solution. Engineers, for example,
tend to be very focused on failure and on technological reliability. Designers, on the
other hand, have a tendency to rely heavily on ‘intuition, fit, and feel’ when
confronted with new problems, and focus on user and context, while business
managers are trained to think first and foremost about the needs of the firm and
focus on marketing criteria. These differences between design team members can
create high levels of skepticism. However, the inevitable conflicts among these
differing mindsets have the potential for triggering truly innovative contributions.
This paper explores the communication process between multidisciplinary team
members during the initial stages of 18 different design project scenarios, in order

Mercè Graell-Colas | 1r Congrés Internacional de Disseny i Innovació de Catalunya | March 2010

to develop a frame of reference for multidisciplinary design team collaboration and
communication. Field-focused interviews were conducted with distinct groups of
stakeholders from the business, design and engineering professions, using
participatory design research methods. Five clusters emerged to be representative
of all the design project scenarios narrated by the interviewees. One important
characteristic in all clusters was the role of the design managers who were central
to the communication flow between key players in the process. They filtered the
information from the client, decided which solutions were presented to the client,
and selected the team players and the disciplines involved in the project.
Consequently, the experience and skill level of design managers was critical in
ensuring clear, effective communication among team members, and in fostering
new ways of thinking integrated with new tools for the collective creativity.

Keywords: Design Thinking, Multidisciplinary teams, Design Management,
Communication Process, Collective Innovation, Design Process.

1. Introduction
In today’s dynamic and changing world, design problems are unstructured and
ill-defined by nature. Reed (2002) defined an ill-defined problem as one that
addresses complex issues and thus cannot easily be described in a concise,
complete manner. Complex design problems include issues such as sustainability
challenges in products with differing regulations as they are assembled and
manufactured in different countries, optimizing the features of an existing car to a
new model, a new banking business model, or the visual labeling of universal
health-related drugs. In addition, no problem ever exists in complete isolation.
“Every problem interacts with other problems and is therefore part of a set of
interrelated problems…” explained Ackoff (1974, p. 21). Because of this
interconnectedness of problems, the design problem-solving process has to be a
multidisciplinary endeavor—functional disciplines working in close collaboration
across functions, instead of looking in narrow silos like ergonomics, finance,
human factors, product design, or marketing, to name a few. (Martin, 2006; Olson
et. al., 2001). Discipline-specific thinking allows for different perspectives to enrich
the design process, but also propitiates differences in perception that make
negotiations and collaboration difficult. Engineers, for example, tend to be very
focused on failure and on technological reliability. Designers, on the other hand,
have a tendency to rely heavily on ‘intuition, fit, and feel’ when confronted with new
problems, and focus on user and context, while business managers are trained to
think first and foremost about the needs of the firm and focus on marketing
criteria. These differences can create high levels of skepticism within teams.
Conversely, the inevitable conflicts among these differing mindsets have the
potential for generating truly innovative contributions. The challenge is to foster
collaboration among all the parties involved while creating effective
communication. “Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different
aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for
solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible” defined Gray
(1989, p.5).

The participation of multiple disciplines is especially relevant at the earliest stages
of the design process or at the “fuzzy beginnings”, as different authors relate to
them. In the fuzzy front end of the design process is when considerations of many
natures come together such as exploration and selection of technological
opportunities, understanding of users and contexts of use, etc. The goal of the
explorations in the front end is to decide what is to be designed or what should not
be designed (Sanders and Stappers, 2008). Therefore, it is crucial that the multiple
disciplines involved in the design team interact at the earliest possible stage of the
process, so that no disciplinary perspectives are overlooked. (Gill and Lilly, 2007).


The objective of this paper is to understand how multidisciplinary teams
collaborate and communicate during the initial stages of the design process, from
design problem setting to initial problem-solving proposal. This paper, then, is a
qualitative research study looking at the communication process or communication
flow (activities and interactions between team members) utilized during eighteen
different design situations or scenarios by multidisciplinary design team members.
The interviews with the professionals were one-on-one and the interviewees were
asked to describe the communication flow among stakeholders during the initial
stages of a memorable design project, whether the project was successful or
unsuccessful. The interviewees were asked to select an example that involved
groups comprised of designers, business managers, and/or engineers.

The paper is structured by first giving an overview of the method that was followed
during the interviews; and secondly, by analyzing the eighteen design situations
described through diagrams in order to identify patterns and relationships in the
flow of communication between team members. As Albarn and Smith (1977) put it,
“The diagram can present at a glance what a verbal description can only present in
a sequence of statements. It is the ideal mode for describing relations between
things.” (1977 p.69). The analysis and synthesis of the diagrams resulted in five
clusters of communication and collaboration processes within multidisciplinary
teams. At the end, the research findings will generate a frame of reference for
successful collaboration and communication within multidisciplinary teams, as well
as conclusions and recommendations for the design manager.

2. Methodology
Focused one-on-one interviews were conducted with business, engineering, and
design practice professionals from the consumer product industry, service industry,
and government agencies in the Dayton and Columbus, Ohio areas. Focused
interviews are helpful in finding out in-depth information about a specific
situation—important considerations, consequences and feelings (Zeisel, 2006).
Participants were asked to describe the communication flow between stakeholders
during the beginning stages of a design project of their choice that involved groups
comprised of designers, business professionals and/or engineers, i.e. to describe
the different communication activities and interactions that design team members
went through during the process from design problem formulation to initial
problem-solving proposal. The methodology used for the interviews was to voice
record their descriptions (after signing a consent form) and to give them the option
of generating a visual narrative of their experience. The interviewees were eighteen
professionals: general managers, marketing managers and creative directors with
backgrounds in industrial design, interior design, graphic design, marketing
strategy, public relations and communications, mechanical engineering and
industrial engineering. Table 1 shows the different interviewees by discipline, team
members in the design project described (D=Designer; E=Engineer; B=Business;
F=other Fields), the interviewee’s work title and type of company, and the design
project. They were given a number to make it easy to refer them later when
analyzing their design descriptions. The interview combined brief questions
concerning the interviewee’s discipline, area of specialization, and number of team
members by discipline together with open-ended questions, such as reflections on
working with other disciplines or how they personally learn about a problem.
Primarily, interviewees were asked to explain the communication process from the
very first moment they were assigned to work on a design problem until the
moment when the design team was ready to provide the initial solutions or
recommendations to the client. In other words, the communication process from
design problem formulation to initial problem-solving proposal. Additionally, they
were given the choice to visually map out the communication process through
participatory research methods—generative techniques used to create context
awareness by eliciting visual responses from the participants (Sanders, 2005).


Table 1. Interviewees by discipline, team members of the design project/scenario
described, interviewee’s work title, company and design project described. D=Designer;
E=Engineer; B=Business; F=Other fields.

With this generative technique, participants are asked to make visual maps of their
experiences using a set of visual material (such as images, words, shapes, stickers,
etc.). They can also add their own drawings, sketches or scribbles. The visual
responses of the participants reflect their engagement, inspiration and empathy for
the experience (Sleeswijk et. al, 2005). This way, the making of the map, serves as
a vehicle to inform and to inspire memories of the process that they are describing.
Sixteen of the eighteen interviewees chose to create visual narratives (Figure 1). In
general, all the communication flows described were mapped out as a series of
non-linear but chronological events.

Figure 1. Example of visual narratives generated by the interviewees. From left to right: from
a creative director (D1), a chief mechanical engineer (E1), and a production manager (B5).

3. Responses and analysis
At the completion of all the interviews, the data collected included: eighteen audio
recordings of the eighteen design project scenarios plus answers to the open-
ended questions of the interview and the visual narratives supporting the


interviewee’s verbal descriptions. The data collected were abstracted into diagrams
to provide a visual perspective that allowed for the emergence of relationships. As
mentioned before, diagrams can present at a glance what a verbal description can
only present in a sequence of statements (Albarn and Smith, 1977). But, why
abstracted? An abstraction is not only a way to summarize information but it also
recognizes the problem at hand to be a dynamic situation. “Problems are
abstractions extracted from messes,” stated Ackoff, and he defines messes as
“…dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that
interact with each other.” (1979, p.90). The communication process between
design team members is a highly interactive process that arises from the
relationships and interactions across the parts, not from individual parts in
isolation. How the parts of a system and levels of analysis are defined is a matter of
perspective and purpose (Beinhocker, 2007). The interviews only offered the
individual perspective of each interviewee, but her/his description of the
communication process included the interactions between members as well as the
purpose of those interactions to the process.

3.1. Communication activities identified

A general communication process emerged after a first draft of the abstracted
diagrams of the eighteen design project scenarios. In all of the scenarios described,
the communication process started with an expressed need from a client (individual
or team) who searched for recommendations and/or solutions to a design problem.
The client was usually from outside the design company, but sometimes it was
management from other departments of the same company. During this research,
the design company is referred to as the team of professional designers, business
and/or engineers that participated in the design project that the interviewee
described, regardless of the “real” type of association. The initial flow of
information occurred between the client and the representative(s) of the design
company, usually the design manager or project manager. During preliminary
meetings the client and the design manager defined the perceived needs or design
problem. Then, the design company initiated its own process of generating ideas
and/or design opportunities in a more or less collaborative and inclusive way in
order to present recommendations or possible solutions to the client. So, in
general, the communication process in all design scenarios could be broken down
into the following three communication activities (see Figure 2):
1. The communication interactions between the client and the design
company for the purpose of defining the problem or perceived needs.
2. The communication interactions between the team members of the design
company for the purpose of generating ideas and opportunities.
3. The communication interactions between the design company and the
client for the purpose of presenting solutions and/or recommendations.

Figure 2. The three general communication activities identified in the communication process
of the eighteen design scenarios described by the interviewees.


3.2. Abstracted diagrams—the high five

Each design project scenario was diagrammed considering the following
characteristics: which members and disciplines participated and when in the
communication process (hierarchy of the design team and communication flow) and
their approach to a design problem (how it was formulated and by whom). From the
18 design project scenarios diagrammed, five clusters emerged to be
representative of all scenarios. The similarities and commonalities were based on
the communication activities in relation to the client, the design manager, and the
participants; and the approach to design. The high five clusters that came into view
were named Truly Collaborative, Effective Working Team, Visual Translation, Strong
Discipline-Biases, and Filtering Manager after their approach to design. Figure 3
shows a summary of the five clusters, with a thumbnail of the five abstracted
diagrams representative of the 18 design project scenarios, and the interviewees
that correspond to each model with their consideration of the design project
success (G for good process and B for bad process). The measure of success of the
communication flow was mainly determined by what the interviewee expressed. For
example, the marketing director (B1) expressed the success of the design project
described by saying “we were able to present new innovative concepts to
management in just three days”; while a very unsuccessful design project scenario
was expressed by the creative director (D1) saying “it was a nightmare of process
and outcome”. At the bottom, figure 3 offers a brief summary of each cluster’s
approach to design.

Figure 3. Five clusters emerged to be representatives of all the 18 design project scenarios.
G = good process, B = bad process.


3.3. Truly Collaborative

This cluster represents the design scenarios described by a marketing director (B1),
by a visual communication designer (D4), and by a chief mechanical engineer (E1).
It stands for the most successful communication flow because (1) it was specifically
expressed as most successful by the interviewees, and (2) it had three critical
issues common to effective teamwork: shared leadership, fast and creative start,
and consensus on the team’s recommendations, (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993).
The common characteristics of this cluster are:
• Approach to design: search for innovation from a well defined problem
• Consensus: whole team agreed on a presentation for decision-making
• Learning process for all
• Flat organization
• Extensive use of drawings and sketches for idea generation, use of a
collective visual perspective of the project for conceptual development and
the use of rough prototypes for presentation that elicited stronger
connections between the team members.
• A scribe for every meeting

Clearly defining the objectives for solving the design problem was one of the key
assets for good team collaboration in these three design project scenarios. In
general, the flat hierarchy and the clear awareness and understanding of all the
roles and skills present at the table were important to the success of the
communication process, as the interviewees expressed. The attitude and
disposition of the participants were fundamental to the team’s achievements— the
visual communication designer (D4) expressed that the project was built through
“education, communication, culture, and research… became a learning experience
for the entire group and the process generated new opportunities.” The comment
that new opportunities arose from the team’s collaboration process was also a
general one to all three scenarios. Sharing leadership was another key asset,
according to the chief mechanical engineer (E1). This participant pointed out the
importance and relevance of the success of the design project, to having different
field-based perspectives in the team with an overall agreement in the fundamental
constraints of the project, and to having a clear knowledge of users.

3.4. Effective working team

The second cluster represents four design project scenarios described by an
industrial designer (D7), by a Chief Operations Officer (B2), by a product manager
(B5), and by an industrial engineer (E4). They all happened to be also the design
managers of the project, except for the industrial engineer E4. This group stands
for another successful communication flow as the interviewees specifically
expressed it. The common characteristics of this cluster are:
• Approach to design: effective working teams to develop somebody’s vision.
• Hierarchy: Leaders of the fields implied in the project (design company’s
team) were involved in the initial meeting with the client’s team.
• Designers and engineers in two separate working teams generated ideas
individually and presented them collectively
• Different disciplines performing separate tasks
• Design manager decided which ideas were presented to the client
• Design manager followed a well-defined working process
• Extensive use of the client specifications and research and the design
manager’s design brief to define the design problem.
• Drawings and 2D/3D sketches, made mostly by designers, were used for
discussion and conceptual development between the diverse disciplines.
• Interactive collaboration through PowerPoint Presentations (PPT) and
marked-up pdf files.


In summary, the design manager developed the design brief and set the agenda
with the client, assigned tasks to leaders of working teams, and decided which
recommendations were presented to the client. Consequently, depending on the
skill level and expertise of the design manager, the project might be successful,
like in these cases, or a failure, as we will see in the description of the group of
scenarios named filtering manager. According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993),
working groups have a strong, clearly focused leader; are individually accountable;
the group’s purpose is the same as the broader organizational mission; generate
individual work products and discusses, decides, and delegates. On the other hand,
teams have shared leadership roles; are individually and mutually accountable; have
a specific team purpose that the team itself delivers; develop collective work
products; discusses, decides, and does real work together; encourages open-ended
discussion and active problem-solving meetings; and runs efficient meetings.

3.5. Visual translation

The third cluster represents three design project scenarios described by a visual
communicator designer (D3), by a marketing and communications director (B2),
and by a general manager (B4). The latter didn’t consider the communication
process to be successful, although shared the same process as the other two,
whom considered it to be profitable (the client’s expectations were met, although
the visual communication designers involved weren’t specially happy with the end
results). The common characteristics of this cluster are:
• Approach to design: visual translation of a solution to a marketing
problem. The client conceptually defined (with words) the solution and its
expectations were of an attractive and easy to use visual product.
• Close collaboration between client and designer
• Design participants felt the need to “educate” the client about visual
literacy
• Heavy involvement of visual communication designers
• Client team outnumbered the design team on average of 3:1 ratio
• No engineering participation
• Extensive use of 2D mock-ups mounted on boards (original drawings and
sketches or computer printouts) for feedback and discussion. They also
served the client for its internal communication process.

These scenarios portrayed the many cases where design is built client driven (from
the client’s expectations down to a final product) instead of user driven (from users
needs up to final product). In the three cases, the client had a clear idea of what
they wanted, could communicate it verbally, but the outcome of the idea was a
graphic product, so they needed a graphic designer to produce it. In the scenario
described by the visual communication designer (D3) the client commissioned a
graphic design solution to a marketing problem. This was the same case of the
scenario described by the marketing and communications director (B2), where the
client decided the need of a graphic design solution, mainly because that was the
solution used by the leading companies in the client’s sector. So, the role of the
visual communication designer was to visually interpret the idea in a set of
sketches and drawings, until client’s approval, instead of utilizing the designer’s
“visual translation” skills to define the problem and look for a solution together.
Overall, in all three scenarios, designers had to get around the many constraints
the client’s idea imposed, including their expectations. For the designer to make a
meaningful visual representation, she/he has to have clear information of what the
client is looking for, which problem she/he is trying to solve, and not working from
the solution. As the general manager (B4) put it, “…you have to ‘educate’ the client
to prioritize information, understand what we do beyond pretty graphics, and to
prevent solutions that generate bigger problems.”


3.6. Strong discipline-biases

The fourth cluster stands for an unsuccessful communication process, because, in
general, the different team participants in the design project had their own agenda,
set of priorities, and expectations of what the solution should look like, that made
collaboration very difficult. This cluster represents six design scenarios described
by a creative director (D1), by an interior designer (D2), by and industrial designer
(D4), by a research scientist (E3), by a mechanical engineer (E5) and by a
mechanical engineer manager (E6). The common characteristics of this cluster are:
• Approach to design: “Organize this. Make it look good.”
• Problem not defined
• Lack of direction—no specific budget, not clear who was the final decision-
maker within the client’s team
• Research not formally done: project commissioned without testing the
feasibility of its content
• Strong cultural biases between disciplines
• The company’s management formed the design team
• Wide use of word lists (list of needs, list of goals, and list of ideas)

I just want something similar to this,” said by a client to a designer, pointing at an
example of a website, a periodical, an environment or a logo, is a very common
situation in the design practice, specially in the visual communication design and
interior design practices where the search for innovation is not a key factor as it is
in the industrial design practice. Business owners, marketing directors or business
management from the client team tend to point to a solution of their liking, usually
by just considering the aesthetics of that solution, assuming that the designer’s
role will be to design a creative tweak to that desirable solution. On the other hand,
the command “make a working model from this drawings” is what mechanical
engineers receive more often than not from the client’s design team, as the
analysis of this scenario shows.

The clash between disciplines is the most common characteristic with all six
scenarios in this cluster. For instance, the way that an interviewed engineer started
the collaboration with a designer was: “Content is 99% done, please make it look
better” (E3). And, the way two interviewed mechanical engineers (E5 and E6) first
heard about the design problem was: “Given the design drawings, please make a
working model.” The design problem in both examples was defined with the sole
perspective of one discipline without considering the other disciplines’ constraints
and perspectives, or, in another words, underestimating the relevance of the other
disciplines. Also, in three out of the six situations management personnel outside
the design team made final decisions about recommendations to the client, which
also speaks to the general lack of understanding of the design process and the
roles and skills of the disciplines involved from business professionals. Business
professionals tend to narrow the scope of the design process to a production
process without including the strategic thinking and conceptual development
characteristics of it. Reflection of this idea is the business management tendency
(cases D1, D2 and D4) to select design team members based on the production
needs of different parts of the design problem, rather than based on their domain
perspective and team capabilities. This way, members of the team are set to
compete between their different sets of priorities instead to collaborate.

In sum, regardless of the domain discipline describing a design project, common
factors to an unsuccessful communication flow in multidisciplinary teams during
the initial stages of the design process are: the lack of a cohesive team, the lack of
awareness and understanding of the roles and skills of all the stakeholders, and the
lack of a well-defined problem.


3.7. Filtering manager

The fifth cluster represents two design scenarios described by a visual
communication designer (D5), and by a mechanical engineer (E2). This is another
representation of an unsuccessful communication process, in this case, due to self-
willed design management. The common characteristics of this cluster is:
• Approach to design: Ideas filtered by one individual/single perspective

These two scenarios described by D5 and E2 reinforced the importance of the
experience and skill level of the manager in any design project, as previously
discussed in the effective working teams cluster. Design managers can go beyond
filtering ideas, to “kill” them, as reflected in the scenario described by the visual
communication designer (D5): the design manager constantly killed all the ideas
that were not in his comfort zone of communicating them to the client. Filtering or
killing ideas can also occur because a strong ego is not accepting ideas from
others.

4. Conclusion
Successful multidisciplinary design teams recognize and define information
relevant to their purpose, consider problem-solving methods, resolve alternatives,
and test solutions, through developing collaborative ways of thinking and
communicating results. The frame of reference for successful communication and
collaboration within multidisciplinary teams is formed by the concepts that
described why, with the complexity of today’s design problems (where), it is
required the integration of multidisciplinary teams (who) to discover, understand
and define the design problem, and develop strategic solutions, especially at the
initial stages of the design process (when). Because multidisciplinary team
collaboration is difficult, design thinking, with its reasoning and resolution tools, is
what will hold the frame together to solve complex design problems. For
innovation to emerge within multidisciplinary teams, the Institute of Design at
Stanford (2009) believes that “…having designers in the mix is key to success in
multidisciplinary collaboration and critical to uncovering unexplored areas of
innovation. Designers provide a methodology that all parties can embrace and a
design environment conducive to innovation. In our experience, design thinking is
the glue that holds these kinds of communities together and makes them
successful.”

This paper has identified the critical new role of design managers as catalyst of not
only ensuring clear, effective communication among team members, but to foster
new ways of thinking integrated with new tools for the collective creativity. New
ways of thinking that combines a truly horizontal and interdisciplinary structure, a
commitment to maintain a focus on people’s needs and customers and other
stakeholder values, and a system that begins with an emphasis on qualitative
methods of discovery are the foundation for successful multidisciplinary design
teams. (Cagan and Vogel, 2002). Further research will be required to redefine the
expanded field of design management, from new innovative methods of creative
problem solving, to new areas of team building expertise.

5. Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable comments and suggestions from
Carolina Gill, Blaine Lilly and Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders.


6. References
6.1. Journal Articles:
Ackoff, R. L. (1979). “The Future of Operational Research is Past.” Journal of Operational
Research Society, v. 30 (2), pp. 93-104.

Gill, C. and Lilly, B. (2007). “Communication Across Disciplines Through Systems
Thinking.” Cumulus 07 International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design,
and Media. Hochschule für Gestaltung in Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany, 14-16 June 2007.

Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. (1993). “The Discipline of Teams.” Harvard Business Review,
pp. 162-171.

Martin, R. (2006). “Designing in Hostile Territory”. Rotman Magazine. Spring/Summer 2006.

Olson, E.M., Walker Jr., O.C., Ruekert, R.W., and Bonner, J.M. (2001). “Patterns of cooperation
during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for
project performance.” The Journal of Product Innovation Management, v. 18, pp.258-271.

Reed, D. (2002). “The use of ill-defined problems for developing problem-solving and
empirical skills in CS1.” Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, v. 18 (1), pp. 121-133.

Sanders, E.B.-N. (2005) “Information, Inspiration and Co-creation.” Proceedings of the
6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design, University of the Arts,
Bremen, Germany.

Sanders, E. B.–N. and Stappers, P. J., (2008), “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of
Design”, CoDesign, Taylor & Francis.

Sleeswijk, F.V., Remko van der Lugt, and Stappers, P.J. (2007). “Sharing User Experiences in
the Product Innovation Process: Participatory Design Needs, Participatory Communication”.
Creativity and Innovation Management, v.16 (1), pp.35-45.

6.2. Books:
Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Albarn, K. and Smith, J. M. (1977). Diagram: The instrument of Thought. Thames and Hudson.

Beinhocker, E. (2007). The origin of wealth. Harvard Business School Press.

Cagan, J. and Vogel, C (2002). Creating Breakthrough Products. Prentice Hall.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground in multiparty problems.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Zeisel, J. (2006). Inquiry by Design. W. W. Norton & Company.

6.3. Electronic resources:
Institute of Design at Stanford (2009). Design Thinking. Retrieved from:
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/dschool/big_picture/design_thinking.html> [Consulted
November 12th, 2009]


Cidic mgc full_paper

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (6)

Similaire à Cidic mgc full_paper

Similaire à Cidic mgc full_paper (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Cidic mgc full_paper